KEY EVIDENCE ON LOCKERBIE BOMBING WAS NOT INVESTIGATED. SECURITY GUARD SAYS THE PAN AM BAGGAGE AREA AT HEATHROW WAS BROKEN INTO BEFORE THE FATAL FLIGHT

- THE MIRROR (UK) - Tuesday September 11th, 2001

Lockerbie: The Lost evidence. LOST FOR 12 YEARS

EXCLUSIVE

By David Pilditch

12:30am December 21st, 1988 Guard finds break-in at luggage bay

7:03pm December 21st, 1988 Pan Am jet blown up at Lockerbie.

MAY 3rd 2000 No sign of evidence at bomb trial,

SECURITY guard Ray Manly was stunned when his evidence of a potential bomb threat to Pan Am's Flight 103 was ignored by the Lockerbie trial.

The reason was simple - a statement he made to police disappeared and his information was overlooked. As a result, neither prosecution or defence knew a break-in had taken, place.

Shocked Mr Manly discovered a professional had sliced through a heavy duty padlock protecting Pan Am's baggage area at Heathrow's Terminal Three hours before the doomed flight took off.

It left the way clear for terrorists to steal a luggage tag and plant a suitcase bomb among baggage already X-rayed and ready for loading.

Although Mr Manly reported the break-in, it was NOT Investigated before take-off.

- Anti-terrorist police only questioned him about the incident the next month and never questioned him again.

And, 12 years later, there Is no sign of the statement or padlock which could hold vital forensic clues. A.

The new evidence could now play a crucial role in the appeal of convicted bomber Abdelbaset All Mohamet-- AI Megrahi who is serving life for the

outrage which killed 270.

'Mr Manly., 63 - who has since been questioned for three hours by prosecutors - told a friend: "I can't believe my evidence was not part of the trial and my statement went missing.

"A terrorist who wanted to put a bomb on that plane would have gained access to the perfect place. The luggage would not be checked again before being loaded on the plane.

"Although police took a statement, I never heard from anyone afterwards. When there was no mention of my evidence at the trial 1 rang police who put me in touch with the defence.

"They told me no one knew about my statement or the break-in. I find that just Incredible.

"My statement has disappeared and so has the padlock. No one can even tell me if it was tested for fingerprints.

"This has been weighing on my mind for over 12 years. At last ,someone is taking it seriously."

The Mirror has obtained copies of two sworn affidavits Mr Manly, who has arthritis, made to defence lawyers.

They will form a key part of Al Megrahi's appeal next year, Mr Manly may be called to give evidence.

The guard discovered the security breach at 12.30am on December 21, seventeen and a half hours before Flight 103 was ripped apart at 31,000ft.

At the time he was in charge of four staff stationed at numbered control posts on the public side of the airport to ensure only those authorised could enter the airside section.

One control post - CP2 - was on the ground floor of the terminal, leas than 5Oft from the Pan Am cheek-in desk.

It was next to the entrance to a Pan Am baggage area on the airside used for luggage too big to be processed by normal cheek-in procedures.

There was a door in a corridor linking the check-in area and the control post. But It was never locked.

A guard would be posted outside the rubber doors of the baggage entrance at all times when they were unlocked.

When there were no more bags to cheek in, the doors would be locked and a padlocked metal bar placed across.

Mr Manly, of Surbiton, Surrey, was making his rounds when he found the broken padlock.

He said in his statement to lawyers: "Position CP2 had been interfered with. The doors were closed.

"However, the padlock was on the floor to the left of the doors and had

been cut through in a way which suggested bolt cutters had been used. I reported my discovery to my night duty officer, Phil Radley and stayed at the post until I could be relieved.

"I did not search the area or enter into the airside through the door. No other person came to the scene.

"In the area airside of CP2, baggage containers for use inside aircraft were left. Loose baggage tagged for loading on to flights would also be left.

"In the cheek-in area Pan Am baggage labels of various types were left unsecured in desks.

"I believe it would have been possible for an unauthorised person to obtain tags for a particular Pan Am flight then, having broken the CP2 lock, to have introduced a tagged bag into the baggage build up area."

Now retired Mr Manly told his friend: "It was the most serious security breach that I came across in 17 years at Heathrow.

This was a professional job. It would have allowed an intruder direct access to the area where Pan Am bags were stored.

"The bags had come from other flights and would already have been tagged and X-rayed."

Mr Manly - who recorded the incident in a log book and an Incident report form - reported back to his supervisor who alerted police at the airport.

He was told to stay at CP2 until he was relieved two hours later. In that time, neither his supervisor or police arrived.

Amazingly, Mr Manly was not interviewed by anti-terrorist police until the following month.

He said: "I was interviewed by a Mr Robson who took a statement. He had the broken padlock in his possession."

After learning that his evidence was lost, Mr Manly was quizzed in March by a lawyer from ^Scottish prosecutors.

He said: "He wanted to know why I hadn't come forward before. I told him I'd given my evidence to police and assumed it had gone forward to the court.

"No one has been able to explain why that didn't happen.

"It was lucky the airport authorities were able to find the log book and incident form I'd filled in. Otherwise I doubt anyone would have believed me."

Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.

FAIR USE NOTICE. This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

United States Code: Title 17, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/17/107.html
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.